Tipping points like this are good reminders that our current policy choices and courses of action are guided by conservative estimates and assumptions- which is why it's a meme at this point when reading about new findings to see that the system is responding 'faster than expected'.
We need a new way to communicate the realities of climate change without allowing our leaders to latch onto some low-probability, low-sensitivity, low-impact fairy tale.
> We need a new way to communicate the realities of climate change ...
It looks like this was removed from the front page in about an hour. We’re not even allowed to talk about this topic on HN so I’m not too optimistic about more ambitious goals.
It’s pretty clear we’ve decided as a society that we’re going to follow the road we’re on, and stick to it hard, and see where it leads.
> It looks like this was removed from the front page in about an hour. We’re not even allowed to talk about this topic on HN so I’m not too optimistic about more ambitious goals.
So we miss out on yet another thread of the same old bitching & complaining, regurgitation of statistics, and snarky criticism of our various outgroups. There are surely several of those happening as we speak on Reddit and elsewhere if you need a fix, I don't think it matters all that much to the planet.
> It’s pretty clear we’ve decided as a society that we’re going to follow the road we’re on, and stick to it hard, and see where it leads.
I think that the climate change denial positions of leaders may be examples of the same kinds of memes that have caused cargo cults in response to other threats to a way of life.
Even the "good" politicians in the US and Europe are proposing solutions that are only solutions given the conservative estimates and assumptions; they're wildly insufficient for the broader range of realistic scenarios.
A lot of this is political, of course: the calculation they're making is that if a policy is hard to pass when it's made to address the conservative models, policies that are appropriate for moderate and highly sensitive scenarios are nigh impossible, so right now it's best to focus on the conservative scenario and hope for the best.
If the media communicated this like “There won’t be any more BBC Planet Earth featuring polar bears, because there won’t be any polar bears anymore”, I believe more people would act.
I know, it’s a ridiculous example, but I don’t think people understand the severity of news like this. I believe that the consequences just seem too far away, both geographically and in time, for people to care.
Every single plebeian on earth wants the polar bears to survive. But their own economic, day-to-day survival is first. These thoughts you have are only for those with the luxury of time.
Edit: so if you TRULY want to help the earth, help your own kind first.
It’s a generational thing. The younger generation has demonstrated they are way more likely to make personal sacrifices to save the planet (look at how they drive less, are vegan more often, and also they say this in surveys)
People will believe fantastic things on faith. When science comes in conflict with their world view they will invoke conspiracy theories and alternate facts. Such is the nature of humankind.
I'm beginning to believe that the only thing that can actually make humanity change it's ways is when the climate changes hits the ones "in charge".
When Washington DC is under water, or London, or Hong Kong then we'll see massive actions to reverse the effects of global warming, but i fear by then it may be too late.
I think we have to return to a sane monetary system first. One in which sane people can become wealthy and have influence over politics and society.
Only a sane person would be willing to make personal sacrifices and to lobby politicians to stop climate change in a meaningful way. Among the rich of today, there are no such people - So nothing will be done. The rich of today are far too focused on trying to stay on top to make the sacrifices necessary to save the planet.
Rich capitalists will keep preaching against the evils of idealism, and yet in doing so, they are themselves being dogmatically idealistic; their belief in anti-idealism can only be described as dogmatically idealistic. It's the most hypocritical ideology possible.
To all capitalists who believe that self-interest is the ultimate virtue, wait till anarchists start acting in their own self-interest and seize all your assets.
The predictions for the consequences of climate change are not in anyone's self-interest. Therefore it's apparently not a problem with prioritizing self-interest. It would seem more likely that there's a trust problem with the consequence predictions.
I don't like the collapse movement, but when I heard about the previsions for the reduction of agriculture yields, I had to admit that it's becoming worse and worse.
Scientists are certain about +2C, and we still have to see how this will play out. It really feels like it will probably reach +4C, and there is a high chance that it could reach +7C since in theory, it's difficult to prevent people from drilling and burning oil.
In my view countries should start to save what can be saved, and try to anticipate how the climate crisis will unfold.
* How to feed everyone
* How to shelter people in colder areas
The military will also have to adapt and anticipate. I'm genuinely scared about the future. It's unreal and ironic to realize the future might look like an hollywood apocalypse movie.
> In my view countries should start to save what can be saved, and try to anticipate how the climate crisis will unfold.
This is the approach that I've advocated since the very beginning.
Humans are extremely adaptable, while organizing groups of human is difficult and unpredictable. Work toward reducing emissions, of course... but you have to assume that won't work and be ready to deal with changes as they come.
> The military will also have to adapt and anticipate. I'm genuinely scared about the future. It's unreal and ironic to realize the future might look like an hollywood apocalypse movie.
I seriously doubt that the US in particular will look anything like that. It looks like we'll likely see coastal area impacted in our lifetimes, and we may see the agricultural areas move further north... but that's not nearly as big a problem for society as a whole as it might sound. If sea levels rise significantly enough, I'm sure we'll see places like NYC start massive engineering projects to either raise the ground level or build flood walls sufficient to hold back the seas. Central Canada is already a rich agricultural area; moving corn and soybean production north wouldn't even make a blip on the radar of most people.
Some people will lose everything, some people will make fortunes. Some people will die, some people will be saved. It's all happened before and will all happen again.
Reading the comments I think the central problem is one of money. If you're living hand to mouth you don't care about problems like this. You've got immediate problems to worry about. If on the other hand you're not - and honestly what I'm talking about is a person living in the first world - than the impetus to action is much shakier then people in the thread are assuming.
Someone said, "They'll want to act when Washington, D.C. is under water". Really? You think that will ever happen? Think about how much money is floating around D.C.? Then think about how much a sea wall would cost. D.C. is never going to be underwater.
Even if it were. Say the sea rises so fast or the price turns out to be so high that sure enough D.C. is under water. Then people will happily pay right?
No. Not then. Because the people there still have tons of money. They can all afford to buy a house that's however far inland it takes to be high enough above sea level. And they have enough money to keep moving.
I'm not saying it's insoluble. Maybe you can scare people into acting. Maybe.
I think the better chance is when people talk about polar bears going away. That's what rich people care about. I'm not sure what the solutions are but I know they involve a lot of money and that means you need a lot of rich people.
But how cold? And what about the whole year's temperatures compared with the averages for that time period in previous years? Decades?
Your insignificant observations are just that - insignificant. Global warming is a much larger subject then the average Joe can observe.
I also never understood the counter-point of just "do nothing." If we do something and global warming wasn't real, what do we lose? Why are you blocking progress just to block it? Your children's lives depend on action, not inaction. Attacking science doesn't change the facts.
The low, rosy climate sensitivities that make 1.5C policy goals look possible are being ruled out: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/climate-change-equili...
A recent study found arctic ice is melting faster than expected: https://phys.org/news/2020-08-underestimated-pace-arctic.htm...
We need a new way to communicate the realities of climate change without allowing our leaders to latch onto some low-probability, low-sensitivity, low-impact fairy tale.